View Full Version : Shock and Awe, huh?
Shock and Awe tactics, huh? Gosh, they certainly love the slogans over there. What that means in non-sloganeering English is: we've flattened half of Baghdad to "liberate" them. See the book if you wish.
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
Well there is some theory on this type of warfare.
The latest contribution to that after Sun Tzu, Yomini, Von Clausewitz, Fuller, etc are from John Boyd and John Warden III, both former pilots in the USAF.
John Warden's five rings hypothesis in a nutshell (http://www.russfound.org/Enet/enemy_system.htm)
and John Boyd's OODA loop (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/59/pilot.html)
Perhaps you recognise that the operation is orchestrated exactly with using those ideas
Fortunately the anti-war crowd never resort to catchy one-line slogans in lieu of debate.[;)]
Njorl
Nicool003
Mar22-03, 11:36 AM
Adam we destroyed his palace his military sites his chemical weapons sites his anti air sites. "We" by the way includes your country so I don't think you should say anything. In case you were mis-informed, Australia is in hte Coalition against iraq. By the way if half of bagdad was flattened it is because the whole city is covered in military sites and memorials to saddam (that he orddered made)
And by the way if you payed attention you would see very few Iraqi's like saddam yesterday hundreds of troops surrenedered. Today thousands did.
Bollocks. Saddam has no chemical weapons. If he did, they would have been on the missiles he launched. But they were merely high explosive warheads. And no, half of Baghdad is NOT all palaces and chemical weapons factories that somehow mysteriously remained unnoticed right under the noses of UN inspectors for ten years.
Nicool003
Mar22-03, 03:50 PM
Bollocks. Saddam has no chemical weapons. If he did, they would have been on the missiles he launched. But they were merely high explosive warheads
Ha. "merely high explosive warheads." do you know how horrible that sounds. No let me correct that. How horrible that IS?! And there have been several missles saddam launched at Kuwait(another group/ country that is being harmed by that pitiful dictator saddam)
And for your information this is the first time IN TEN YEARS that inspectors were allowed IN Iraq! so they were only hidden for the two months that inspectors were there. And there were implications they were hidden in underground places or under homes and maasques that inspectors don't have access too.
all day friday on the major corporate media news stations, i heard the term "shock and awe"...i got the feeling that they wanted to be responble for setting a theme of the destruction done...personally i feel corporate media is ridiculous...
it would have been nice if more people understood that Kerrie. [:((]
Creator
Mar23-03, 04:11 PM
As far as I'm concerned if Saddam's face & voice is still coming across Iraqi TV and radio, then they definitely were not shocked and awed enough![<:)]
Nicool003
Mar23-03, 09:21 PM
Bollocks. Saddam has no chemical weapons. If he did, they would have been on the missiles he launched. But they were merely high explosive warheads. And no, half of Baghdad is NOT all palaces and chemical weapons factories that somehow mysteriously remained unnoticed right under the noses of UN inspectors for ten years.
Saddam does have chemical weapons!!! Found them today in special chemical factories and sites. They also captured one of the generals in charge of the facility. And By the way. Those high explosive warhead missles you said he launched? You forgot to mention that they were all missles HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.
Creator
Mar23-03, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Nicool003
Saddam does have chemical weapons!!! Found them today in special chemical factories and sites. They also captured one of the generals in charge of the facility. And By the way. Those high explosive warhead missles you said he launched? You forgot to mention that they were all missles HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.
Good point Nicool. I wish the Saddam sympathizers would get their head out of the sand.
The problem with hiding their head in the sand is that it exposes one's *** high above one's head. [6)]
I'm sure the chemical weapons that are found will have an inscription on them saying something like: "Made in France" .
So maybe we ought to 'return' them to their rightful owner; ha, ha.[:D] I suggest we bring them to the UN building and place them on desk of the French UN Ambasssdor, you know, the one who said 'we have NO evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction'. Watching him scramble for the nearest emergency exit [g)] would make the entire war worth the effort. [:D]
Creator
You need lessons in rational discussion.
If someone presents a fact, you can not dimiss the fact by saying "well, he likes chicken curry, therefore he's wrong". In other wrds, even if I was a "Saddam Sympathiser" as you say, that alone would not negate facts.
PS: I am not a "Saddam sympathiser". That's just stupid.
The attacks on Baghdad has actually seemed surprisingly careful to me. Even the Iraqi government isn't reporting more than 3 or 4 civilian casualties in the city so far.
Originally posted by Adam
PS: I am not a "Saddam sympathiser". That's just stupid.
you are obviously a supporter of evil in general, I'll bet you worship satan himself!
[;)]
Creator
Mar23-03, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Adam
You need lessons in rational discussion.
If someone presents a fact, you can not dimiss the fact by saying "well, he likes chicken curry, therefore he's wrong". In other wrds, even if I was a "Saddam Sympathiser" as you say, that alone would not negate facts.
PS: I am not a "Saddam sympathiser". That's just stupid.
You need a lesson in rational intelligence, Adam.
When someone presents a fact you OUGHT to be able to recognze it rather than CONTINUING to hide your head in the sand. [s(]
One more time and maybe you will get it>>>MAYBE
Fact: Chemical weapons HAVE BEEN FOUND .
If you continue to bury your head in the sand we can only conclude yes, you ARE a die hard Saddam sympathizer.
We can only conclude you are sympathizing with a mass murderer, whose sons rape women AND MEN. Maybe that appeals to YOU, but we find it abhorent.
Its amazing that you want to appease these type of people.
Nevertheless, rest assured WE won't - In spite of your criticism and lack of courage WE WILL continue to stand against these devils.
Creator
Originally posted by Creator
Fact: Chemical weapons HAVE BEEN FOUND
i havent heard that yet, do you have link?
Please show me the evidence that chemical weapons have been found.
russ_watters
Mar24-03, 01:06 PM
Fact: Chemical weapons HAVE BEEN FOUND . You may be jumping the gun here a little. A chemical weapons PLANT has been found. Its not yet clear if there are actual wepons in there though. Semantics in any case.
Originally posted by Nicool003
Ha. "merely high explosive warheads." do you know how horrible that sounds. No let me correct that. How horrible that IS?! And there have been several missles saddam launched at Kuwait(another group/ country that is being harmed by that pitiful dictator saddam)
Hmmmm...we have more high explosives, that makes us worse, right? At what point do you tell a contry that it cannot have any capacity to defend itself?
And for your information this is the first time IN TEN YEARS that inspectors were allowed IN Iraq! so they were only hidden for the two months that inspectors were there. And there were implications they were hidden in underground places or under homes and maasques that inspectors don't have access too.
Untrue. The inspectors were pulled out in 1998 so that America could resume bombings.
Originally posted by russ_watters
You may be jumping the gun here a little. A chemical weapons PLANT has been found. Its not yet clear if there are actual wepons in there though. Semantics in any case.
actcualy a chemical plant has been found, if you automaticly consider a chemical plant one for chemical weapons then we really need to clean up this country first. [;)]
Originally posted by Zero
Untrue. The inspectors were pulled out in 1998 so that America could resume bombings. [/B]
Inspectors were told to stop inspections by the Iraqi government. When they tried to persist, they were imprisoned in their buses or held at gunpoint and threatened with death. Those conditions were not seen as conducive to continued inspections, so they were withdrawn.
You got the year right though.
Njorl
Originally posted by Njorl
Inspectors were told to stop inspections by the Iraqi government. When they tried to persist, they were imprisoned in their buses or held at gunpoint and threatened with death. Those conditions were not seen as conducive to continued inspections, so they were withdrawn.
You got the year right though.
Njorl
Odd. I seem to remember the head of teh U.N. inspection teams supporting my perception of what happened...but what would he know?
Originally posted by Zero
Odd. I seem to remember the head of teh U.N. inspection teams supporting my perception of what happened...but what would he know?
On Oct 31 1998 Iraq declared that inspections would cease. Shortly thereafter, Richard Butler withdrew inspection teams to Bahrain. On November 11th, Bill Clinton stated that serious military repercussions would result if inspections were not allowed to continue. On Nov 14, 1998, inspectors were re-admitted. Richard Butler was supplied by US intelligence with the locatins of several sites believed to be storage facilities for proscribed materiel. On Dec 8th, UNSCOM inspectors attempted to search one of these sites. Permission was refused.
Butler withdrew the inspectors again, on Dec 14th. Four days of bombing began on the 16th. You could say that inspectors were withdrawn to allow bombing, but the truth is there were no inspections after Oct 31 of any significance. The inspectors were withdrawn because they were doing nothing.
Njorl
Nicool003
Mar24-03, 03:29 PM
Do you think there was nothing in a chemical plant that they found? Actually I believe tehy found two... But let's just focus on one right now. There was a GENERAL from the iraqi military in charge of it. Coincidence? No. Besides more has come out about it all you have to do is watch the news and read the newspaper and go online and search. Also the facility was hidden and they are holding the general in charge of the facility now. Also I believe they DID say there were weapons in there but I could have heard wrong I suppose.
Adam if you are not a supporter of saddam what are you? You seem very anti American. No let me correc that. you ARE very anti American. Most of your topics and posts are anti american. What gives?
Nicool003
Mar24-03, 03:31 PM
You may be jumping the gun here a little. A chemical weapons PLANT has been found
Ummm let's think a little here if it is a CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANT then what do they make in a CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANT?
chemical weapons. Just read my last post I don't feel like repeating anything right now.
Originally posted by kyleb
actcualy a chemical plant has been found, if you automaticly consider a chemical plant one for chemical weapons then we really need to clean up this country first. [;)]
Nicool003
Mar24-03, 03:41 PM
What was the point of that post? you quoted yourself and posted it. It sounds just stupid and lame the second time as it did the first...
Originally posted by Nicool003
Adam if you are not a supporter of saddam what are you? You seem very anti American. No let me correc that. you ARE very anti American. Most of your topics and posts are anti american. What gives?
I quite like America in general, and its people. However, I have these dislikes:
Politicians.
Bureaucrats.
Hypocrisy.
War.
The above four combining to kill civilians.
Nicool003
Mar24-03, 05:08 PM
If that is true (and I know it is I take your word for it) Then you have every reason to go against Iraq instead of the U.S.
Just as I dislike the US administration and not the US people, so I dislike the Iraqi administration and not the Iraqi people.
Originally posted by Nicool003
What was the point of that post? you quoted yourself and posted it. It sounds just stupid and lame the second time as it did the first...
you don't understand that there are other chemicals besides chemical weapons do you?
russ_watters
Mar25-03, 12:38 AM
you don't understand that there are other chemicals besides chemical weapons do you? It is pretty easy to tell from the specific chemicals in the warehouse what the plant is for.Ummm let's think a little here if it is a CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANT then what do they make in a CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANT? Easy, buddy. I'm on your side. My point was that they didn't find any actual chemical weapons in the plant. Its hairsplitting, yes. But those hairs are ones the rest of the world is going to split.
Originally posted by russ_watters
It is pretty easy to tell from the specific chemicals in the warehouse what the plant is for.
sure enough, but i have not heard reports of what specific chemicals were found.
Nicool003
Mar25-03, 08:30 AM
O.K so you (Kyleb and Adam) Say there are no weapons of mass destruction and no chemical weapons? Saddam ordered his republican guard to use them at will as soon as allied forces reach the baghdad.
Also
1) Can you please show me the evidence that Saddam Hussein has ordered his Republican Guard to use chemical weapons?
2) Actually my personal suspicion is that Iraq has NBC weapons. However, I try to never let my own suspcions influence my actions. I must keep in mind that a suspicion is not a fact.
Originally posted by Adam
1) Can you please show me the evidence that Saddam Hussein has ordered his Republican Guard to use chemical weapons?
2) Actually my personal suspicion is that Iraq has NBC weapons. However, I try to never let my own suspcions influence my actions. I must keep in mind that a suspicion is not a fact.
Adam, you live in the new world, where whatever you make up to support your view becomes 'fact', and suspicion is as good as knowledge. If Fox News or Rush Limbaugh say it is true, it is true, by default, in a 1984 sort of way.
War is Peace!
Aka: "To liberate the Iraqi people, we're gonna bomb the hell out of Baghdad."
Originally posted by Adam
War is Peace!
Aka: "To liberate the Iraqi people, we're gonna bomb the hell out of Baghdad."
'giving Iraq self-determination' = 'giving U.S. companies control of Iraqi resources and industries, and the Iraqi people have to accept the slave wages that those companies are willing to pay'
Nicool003
Mar25-03, 05:18 PM
1) Can you please show me the evidence that Saddam Hussein has ordered his Republican Guard to use chemical weapons?
Oh give it up! Open your eyes! It's everywhere. Unless your media is so bad that you don't know about it. It's been on the news all day!
War is Peace! "To liberate the Iraqi people, we're gonna bomb the hell out of Baghdad."
Not really. We are going to try to avoid civilian casualties. By the way speaking of civilians. Many Iraqi's have taken up the fight. They have been attacking Saddam husane's loyalists and troops.
'giving Iraq self-determination' = 'giving U.S. companies control of Iraqi resources and industries, and the Iraqi people have to accept the slave wages that those companies are willing to pay'
Oh great another one. IF you payed attention you would know that we are giving the Iraqi's control of their oil fields etc... Read what I just said to adam. You seem to think the Iraqi's like saddam husane. They DONT!!!
Looks like nothing at the site.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2509601,00.html
Originally posted by Nicool003
Oh give it up! Open your eyes! It's everywhere.
[:D]
The officers and soldiers, led by Lt.-Col. James Johnson, were concerned by the large number of artillery shells found by the complex because, according to Naspaugh, the main means of deploying WMD is artillery shells.
"We gave our description of the complex to the higher-ups of the Fifth Corps and the 75th Exploration Task Force at Fort Sills," Naspaugh said.
"We will make our assessment of the complex to higher-ups. They will decide whether to send in another team that will come and take samples back to a laboratory that will use a gold standard. The only person who will announce such a finding is the president or the prime minister.
"I can't confirm or deny if there are chemical weapons here. In the bunker, we looked at, we found protective gear," Naspaugh said, referring to chemical-resistant masks, suits, and gloves.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1048562545224
so it is all still speculation.
Nicool003
Mar26-03, 11:28 AM
What is still all speculation? That the Iraqi citizens don't like him? Hey you know them morons that went and became a human shield? They interviewed a few people that left on the news yesterday and when asked why the left they reponded that they thought the Iraqi's liked or at least were fine with saddam but when they talked to iraqi citizens they were told what horrible and disgusting things he did to people who disliked him.
What is still all speculation? That he has weapons of mass destruction? He certainly does. He ordered them used and he already fired missles much stronger and longer ranged than he was supposed to have.
What is still all speculation? That the Iraqi's that are loyal to saddam are almost as evil as him? That they got American uniforms and are killing innocent iraqi citizens?
I'm not convinced Iraq has chemical weapons that it can use in this war. Last I heard, Iraq had chemicals for chemical weapons. While they claimed that they had destroyed these chemicals, they offered no proof. There are scenarios that would lead to no use of chemical weapons though.
They might have destroyed the chemicals, and refused to prove it so as to keep the possibility alive for deterrence purposes. Foolish and unlikely, but possible.
They may not have had the opportunity to arm the chemicals into munitions while inspectors were in the country, or in the brief period between their departure and the beginning of fighting.
If they had no chemical weapons ready to use, the Iraqis would try to convince us that they did. They would make sure that we found chemical protection suits, and atropine injectors. This way, we expect and diligently prepare for an attack that doesn't happen.
That being said, we still have to assume that they will use them, and prepare accordingly.
Njorl
Nicool003
Mar26-03, 12:48 PM
we still have to assume that they will use them, and prepare accordingly.
You took a good amount of time to write that whole post and in the end you come to basically the same conclusion I already mentioned. So you could have saved some time you know...
russ_watters
Mar26-03, 04:01 PM
Cut him some slack, Nicool. Njorl clearly has taken the time to think through his opinion. Its refreshing considering all the knee-jerking going on here.
[:(] It's tough being a liberal hawk. [:(]
Njorl[;)]
Nicool003
Mar26-03, 06:51 PM
Cut him some slack, Nicool. Njorl clearly has taken the time to think through his opinion. Its refreshing considering all the knee-jerking going on here.
You are right although you have to admit, that was nothing next to what adam and kyleb are getting... Sorry Njorl it wasn't anything you said I was just saying that you basically said what I said and that you need not have typed all that. I had just responded to another of kyleb's posts so I wasn't thinking to clearly...sorry.
What is still all speculation? That he has weapons of mass destruction? He certainly does. He ordered them used and he already fired missles much stronger and longer ranged than he was supposed to have.Well, despite what one might think from watching Faux News, there is still no evidence of Iraq using any banned weapons. The supposed SCUDS that were launched turned out to be perfectly legal (ironic term) short-ranged missiles.
Personally, I think it's fairly certain Saddam has a few chem weapons left, but no real evidence has been found of them yet. Does he have chemical production facilities left? Possibly, but I tend to doubt it. The US did a pretty good job of wiping those out it Gulf War I, and the off-and-on inspections probably made things quite difficult for Saddam recently.
Originally posted by Nicool003
I had just responded to another of kyleb's posts so I wasn't thinking to clearly...sorry.
well at least you admit it. [:))]
Nicool003
Mar26-03, 07:32 PM
Well, despite what one might think from watching Faux News, there is still no evidence of Iraq using any banned weapons. The supposed SCUDS that were launched turned out to be perfectly legal (ironic term) short-ranged missiles. '
It wasn't just fox news so you must not watch the other channels I watch... Also it has been online on a very trustworthy website that has things up a day or more before the news ever has them on...
^^^ :) Where at? Debka? aeronautics.ru? None of the places I consider reliable have reported even good suspicions of banned missiles. The worst confirmed thing so far is the NBC protection suits found in that Iraqi hospital...
Njorl -- I feel ya.
Nicool003
Mar26-03, 08:11 PM
Ahh! Now I see! Fox news is not reliable because it is actually run by republicans AND democrats instead of just democrats who change everything or don't tell you everything because they don't like the president! Instead (like i have said before) you want the democrats and their wonderful Clinton to come back so Bill could run to canada because he doesn't have the intelligence to know that 1) there isn't a draft! 2) He is too old . In case any of you don't know or chose not to listen, Bill clinton ran to canada to escape getting drafted to war. Yes and those other democratic stations also want bill back so he can lie to the country again the democrats just love those presidents. Yes I see your point completely Yes I see. You don't like republicans so now Fox News is unreliable. Well they aren't the only station to say that and there are also websites like i mentioned...
In case you said that to Njorl because I kinda snapped at him then once again I am sorry.
BoulderHead
Mar26-03, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Sensei
we're quite the iconic culture. i just fear our very thoughts may eventually become slogans, nothing more than parroted back synaptic renditions of what those in power wish us to believe. You mean like; Oh, that Saddams a baaaad man.... He must be stopped...
Originally posted by Kerrie
all day friday on the major corporate media news stations, i heard the term "shock and awe"...i got the feeling that they wanted to be responble for setting a theme of the destruction done...personally i feel corporate media is ridiculous... Ever notice how 'they' all have the same slant?
I'm quoting a bit offPhotoDude.com (http://www.photodude.com/weblog/dumped/2003/March/002659.shtml) He grabs the quote from CBN (http://cbn.org/CBNNews/News/030326c.asp). This is the first time I've read their site so reader beware. I don't discredit the info due to that but..I do..do...my due...diligence [;)] as you should do yours!
Paul Strand: “What I just heard from a highly placed source here is that they've discovered, they've captured chemical warheads, they're Russian, they have Russian writing all over them and they are chemical warheads. Of course, they can't get into them and find out if there’s chemicals because once they open them they'd all die right there on the spot. But they're gonna ship them off for testing.”
“They also captured a launcher that was able to shoot these very munitions that they've captured. And they’ve captured a man who mixes the chemicals, that was his job with the Medina Division which is the division we're facing right now near the city of Karbala. So all these things leading the military here to believe we might have been hit by chemical shells any time now, and we're not sure we've got them all. So those are the developments here near Karbala about 60 miles south of Baghdad.”
Whoa! Take it easy there Nicole... cmon, let me at least make some outrageous liberal claims before you go attacking me for them! [;)]
Anyways, I think Fox is unreliable, because, well, everytime I've watched them they seem to be. They're too gung-ho, and, well, biased for me to take them seriously. Incidentally, I think the exact same thing about many liberal sources--you'll not see me quoting IndyMedia, for example.
Anyways, so I'm curious, what is this site?
russ_watters
Mar27-03, 02:52 AM
Anyways, I think Fox is unreliable, because, well, everytime I've watched them they seem to be. They're too gung-ho, and, well, biased for me to take them seriously. I don't watch FOX news because they try too hard to make the news exciting. Not quite the same as their mild right leaning bias.
I tend to watch CNN because with their resources they generally have the best information. And I can tell the difference between fact and opinion, so their mild left slant doesn't bother me.
Nicool003
Mar27-03, 03:25 PM
Take it easy there Nicole...
That would be Nicool or Nick.
[;)]
Ooops! My bad. :) Oh, you asked in another thread (I lost which) where I hear rumors from... usually it's from www.agonist.org , www.dailykos.com , www.tacitus.org and a number of other blog sites. I've found them to be usually pretty accurate, but I try and qualify things if I haven't seen confirmed on a major media outlet (besides Faux or al Jazeera ;) ).
Nicool003
Mar28-03, 03:29 PM
well one website (the drudge report) is very good I find it to usually be faster than the media and it hasn't failed me yet.
the drudge good for many things, i would definitely not use it as my only source though.
Nicool003
Mar29-03, 06:11 PM
I didn't say it was my ONLY source...[:D]
Originally posted by Adam
"To liberate the Iraqi people, we're gonna bomb the hell out of Baghdad."
You may be upset about the war, but the US is not "bombing the hell out of Baghdad". It is bombing the hell out of the military/government targets in Baghdad. There is a huge effort to avoid civilian deaths.
Iraq on the other hand is reportedly using its civilians as shields and killing those (or the families of those) who refuse to fight.
russ_watters
Mar30-03, 11:59 PM
You may be upset about the war, but the US is not "bombing the hell out of Baghdad". It is bombing the hell out of the military/government targets in Baghdad. There is a huge effort to avoid civilian deaths.
Iraq on the other hand is reportedly using its civilians as shields and killing those (or the families of those) who refuse to fight. Two conveniently ignored, yet hugely important points.
i think they are both good points, the latter as well as the fact that the "huge effort" is still leaving many civilians in its wake were things i expected when this war was proposed in the first place.
I should add that, at least in Basra, it would seem that the Iraq military is not letting the cilivians flee the city (shooting/mortar shelling groups trying to leave). The are keeping the civilians in harm's way, I suspect, in order to cause more civilian deaths so they can win the political war. I think Iraq knows it can't beat the Coalition military toe-to-toe, but they think they can win the propoganda war (and so far, they are doing well at that).
ya, unfortnatly when you back people into a corner they often start pulling every dirty trick in the book. [:(]
russ_watters
Mar31-03, 01:56 PM
ya, unfortnatly when you back people into a corner they often start pulling every dirty trick in the book. So murdering your own people is just a "dirty trick"? Wow, is that all the Iraqi people are worth? These "dirty tricks" may land Saddam in front of a a Nurenberg firing squad and they are on par with the things that Stalin and Hitler did to their own people.
as well as the fact that the "huge effort" is still leaving many civilians in its wake were things I expected when this war was proposed in the first place. Certainly civilian casualties were expected - they are in fact unaviodable in a war. But how many do you think we have killed? by my estimate if we believe without question the reports of Iraqi tv, we've killed something like 150. Considering the tonnage we've dropped on Iraq, thats an extrordinarily small number.
well when it comes down to the honest action or dirty trick line, which side would you put it on russ?
These "dirty tricks" may land Saddam in front of a a Nurenberg firing squadLike he's gonna end up anyplace else anyways? That's the problem with leaving people with nothing to lose: They don't fight fair. If hiding in cities and guerrilla tactics are the only way the Iraqis can fight back, that's how their gonna fight back.
Originally posted by damgo
Like he's gonna end up anyplace else anyways? That's the problem with leaving people with nothing to lose: They don't fight fair. If hiding in cities and guerrilla tactics are the only way the Iraqis can fight back, that's how their gonna fight back.
I'm sorry, but I don't care what the circumstances are fair/Saddam's regime is an oxymoron.
russ_watters
Apr1-03, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by damgo
Like he's gonna end up anyplace else anyways? Well that was just an illustration - I think he's dead already.
well when it comes down to the honest action or dirty trick line, which side would you put it on russ? when it comes down to the green or beaver line, which side would you put it on, kyle? What an utterly meaningless question.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.